5 Comments

Interesting article.

Expand full comment
author

1/10 would not read again.

Pros:

-possibly a compliment

Cons:

-not 12 paragraphs long full of questions and thoughts.

Expand full comment
Feb 5, 2022·edited Feb 5, 2022

I almost wrote several paragraphs but decided not to at the last time. Don't worry next time I'll bless you once again with my *intelligence*.

and yes it was a compliment.

Expand full comment
Nov 30, 2023Liked by Max

Reading your stuff makes it pretty obvious to what degree even most very smart people are absolutely incapable of breaking frame and synthesizing across subjects. Also, legitimately inspiring article (to me), thanks. U rite gud, wish ya much sucess on becoming Jordan Ferris-Yarvin, decent choice of aspirational creative persona combo, and tbh you already are pulling it off writing-wise. Once I actually start doing anything creatively, think I'll shoot for Vervaeke + Andres Gomez Emilsson + ZeroHP, which feels hubristic to say, but as you outline, a man's gotta dream).

Bigly relate to the political compass hopping autism, also missing tanky, refuse to read Marx tho. Synthesising across thinkers & domains >>> specialisation, being a jack of all trades becomes more and more important as functional social intelligence (and one day infrastructure...) breaks down around us and we become ever more alienated from our labour (yay, a useful authleft concept!). Anyway, dig yo shit brotha, strait fire, no cap (as they definitely say).

Expand full comment

A simple and fun critique: safety in exploration on truths as conditionals (the art of the possible), are better than falsely coining universal truths through assumptions of unexplored territory (fundamentalism). At the same time, people can always believe in tinfoil hat beliefs, and tactics should be drafted to make discernment of the impossible easier (Clear Pill, anyone?). This also falls into the weird nether region of deontology vs consequentialism.

Expand full comment